England and Wales Case Law

Wang Zeng International Limited v Bing Bing Foods Limited & Ors

The claimant’s trade marks were not generic or descriptive at the relevant dates, were distinctive, and not registered in bad faith. The defendants’ use of identical signs for identical goods without consent constituted infringement under s.10(1) TMA. The defendants’ counterclaim for invalidity, revocation, and bad faith failed for lack of evidence. Mr Bingtao Wang, as sole director and controlling mind of BBF, had requisite knowledge and is jointly and severally liable; Mr Sohi’s role was purely administrative and he is not liable.

Source excerpt

• Trade mark infringement
• Trade mark validity
• Distinctiveness
• Descriptiveness
• Genericism
• Bad faith

Read case analysis

Wang Zeng International Ltd v Bing Bing Foods Ltd & Ors

Wang Zeng International Ltd v Bing Bing Foods Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 360 (IPEC) (20 February 2026)

The court held that the claimant’s pear trade marks were valid and infringed. The defendants failed in their invalidity and revocation counterclaim, and one director was held jointly liable.

• Trade mark infringement
• Trade mark validity
• Distinctiveness
• Descriptiveness
• Genericism
• Acquired distinctiveness

Read case analysis

Dryrobe Ltd v Caesr Group Ltd (t/a D-ROBE OUTDOORS)

Dryrobe Ltd v Caesr Group Ltd (t/a D-ROBE OUTDOORS) [2025] EWHC 3167 (IPEC) (04 December 2025)

Dryrobe succeeded in trade mark infringement and passing off against D-ROBE OUTDOORS. The court upheld DRYROBE’s marks, found confusion, and dismissed invalidity and revocation counterclaims.

• Trade mark infringement
• Passing off
• Trade mark validity
• Genericism
• Likelihood of confusion
• Trade-mark-infringement

Read case analysis

Dryrobe Limited v Caesr Group Limited

The Marks, although descriptive for certain goods, have acquired medium to high distinctiveness through extensive use, marketing, and media coverage. Defendant's D-ROBE Sign and Shield Sign are sufficiently similar to the Marks and used on identical goods, causing a likelihood of confusion among a significant proportion of the public, including direct, indirect, and post-sale confusion. Evidence of actual confusion confirms this risk. Defendant's use also causes detriment and takes unfair advantage of the Marks' reputation. The Marks are not generic as of the relevant dates and have not lost…

Source excerpt

• Trademark infringement
• Trademark validity
• Genericism
• Acquired distinctiveness
• Revocation
• Section 10(2) tma

Read case analysis

Healing Herbs Limited v. Bach Flower Remedies Limited

Healing Herbs Limited v. Bach Flower Remedies Limited [1998] EWHC Patents 318 (22nd May, 1998)

The court held that the marks 'BACH FLOWER REMEDIES' and 'BACH' (including the signature script and roundel device) are invalid as trade marks for the relevant goods because they are generic or descriptive terms for remedies made according to Dr Bach's methods and have not acquired sufficient distinctiveness to function as badges of origin. The evidence showed widespread generic use of the terms by practitioners, the public, and in publications, and the respondent's own conduct historically encouraged such use. The marks are therefore excluded from registration under section 3(1) of the Trade…

Source excerpt

• Trade mark validity
• Genericism
• Descriptiveness
• Passing off

Read case analysis